Lens dilemma

OK, I sold my D70 18-70 (didn't find the range extremely pleasing with the variable aperture; 24-120 (sold to upgrade to the 18-200 VR II); 24 f/2.8 (not a great match for digital); 50 f/1.4 (too noisy) and Sigma 30 f/1.4 (backfocus) (Grand total $2100). I retained my 70-200 VR; sb-800 and TC 14IIE. I have on order a D200 and another Sigma 30 f/1.4. I can either afford to buy the sigma and the 18-200 VR II or cancel the sigma, forget the 18-200 VR and get the 17-55 only. I don't shoot wide angle so the 17-30 range is a luxury for me, but I do shoot low light. Can I afford to give up the two stops and the versatility of the zoom? Or am I just lusting after the 17-55? Which option would you choose and why.
Option A 18-200 VR II and sigma 30 f/1.4 or
Option B 17-55.

... I don't shoot wide angle so the 17-30 range is a luxury for me, but I do shoot low light. Can I afford to give up the two stops and the versatility of the zoom? Or am I just lusting after the 17-55? Which option would you choose and why.
Option A 18-200 VR II and sigma 30 f/1.4 or
Option B 17-55.

Click to expand...

I think you're lustin' dude. Since you are going for another 30, there must be something about this lens that you do like. And for low light, there is nothing like aperture. I doubt the 18-200 will be any more of a low light lens than the 24-120 is. 17-55 is just a compromise between the two. Have you considered the 28 f/1.4? About the same price range as the 17-55 isn't it?

Go with option A for start. When the time comes you'll build around it.

Most sincerely, I own too many great lenses. Soo much fun. I'll die and I won't even scratch the surface of all they have to offer. I shoot a lot of weddings. Great. But then, to my surprise, some famous photographers shoot weddings with kit lenses 90% of the wedding, the other 10% is a low light lens. Wanna laugh even more? They shoot Jpeg. And funnier, often compressed Jpeg such as Large/medium and lower quality.

I would never do that.

Now really, the 18-200 is a great starter for non-pros and even pros will onw one, guaranteed! Leave the lens lust aside for a moment. I thnk it's more important to shoot your kids and great moments. Later one you'll always add other lenses and resell.

I think you're lustin' dude. Since you are going for another 30, there must be something about this lens that you do like. And for low light, there is nothing like aperture. I doubt the 18-200 will be any more of a low light lens than the 24-120 is. 17-55 is just a compromise between the two. Have you considered the 28 f/1.4? About the same price range as the 17-55 isn't it?

Click to expand...

Beach camera has the 17-55 for around $1100. I loved the sigma 30 - sent it back because it backfocused and was hoping Nikon would introduce a 35 f/1.4 DX but no dice, so I reordered it. I emailed NikonUSA about a D200 18-200 bundle and they said it was forthcoming but declined to estimate a date. I am far too impatient to wait. Option A it is. I don't have high hopes for the 18-200 VR II, just an adequate replacement for my 24-120 for snaps and travel. (Although, the MTF data is outstanding considering the range). Thanks for your comments. As for the 28 f/1.4...in my dreams (for now).

I whole heartedly agree, however it is a great range for snapshot stuff and I will have the 70-200 and the sigma 30 to cover the other 98% of my shooting. I just like to be able to slap on a lens with no worries. When I was in Hawaii last year, I lugged around all my gear for a week and thereafter only took my D70 with 24-120 attached. It was like paradise once again. For my money there are times when you just want to document the event without worrying about superfulous gear slowing you down - or having a constant eye on thieves.

Uncle Frank said:

Complicated stuff, Chad. The key is to understand your shooting style and standards for excellence. Nobody else can untangle this for you.

My guess is the 18-200 won't match up well with the high resolution d200. As in the case of the d2x, I think the d200 will be unhappy if you don't use pro glass on it.

Go with option A for start. When the time comes you'll build around it.

Most sincerely, I own too many great lenses. Soo much fun. I'll die and I won't even scratch the surface of all they have to offer. I shoot a lot of weddings. Great. But then, to my surprise, some famous photographers shoot weddings with kit lenses 90% of the wedding, the other 10% is a low light lens. Wanna laugh even more? They shoot Jpeg. And funnier, often compressed Jpeg such as Large/medium and lower quality.

I would never do that.

Now really, the 18-200 is a great starter for non-pros and even pros will onw one, guaranteed! Leave the lens lust aside for a moment. I thnk it's more important to shoot your kids and great moments. Later one you'll always add other lenses and resell.

Complicated stuff, Chad. The key is to understand your shooting style and standards for excellence. Nobody else can untangle this for you.

My guess is the 18-200 won't match up well with the high resolution d200. As in the case of the d2x, I think the d200 will be unhappy if you don't use pro glass on it.

Click to expand...

Uncle Frank, are you saying that the 18-200 won't take good pictures on the D2X? If so, why do think this?

This is one lens I wanted for the X if not too expensive. This would be a great lens to carry around for everything I would think. I have the 70-200VR but it would be nice to start with 18 and up on one lens then I wouldn't have to carry my other lenses very often.

I whole heartedly agree, however it is a great range for snapshot stuff and I will have the 70-200 and the sigma 30 to cover the other 98% of my shooting. I just like to be able to slap on a lens with no worries. When I was in Hawaii last year, I lugged around all my gear for a week and thereafter only took my D70 with 24-120 attached. It was like paradise once again. For my money there are times when you just want to document the event without worrying about superfulous gear slowing you down - or having a constant eye on thieves.

Uncle Frank, are you saying that the 18-200 won't take good pictures on the D2X? If so, why do think this?

Click to expand...

I think it will take very good pictures on the d2x, but from reading posts by pro d2x owners, like Bjorn, I'm led to believe it will show the weak points in any lens put on it. I can't imagine Nikon can make an 18-200 lens without having to make compromises, and the d2x will be a great camera for identifying and showcasing them. Jmho.

I think it will take very good pictures on the d2x, but from reading posts by pro d2x owners, like Bjorn, I'm led to believe it will show the weak points in any lens put on it. I can't imagine Nikon can make an 18-200 lens without having to make compromises, and the d2x will be a great camera for identifying and showcasing them. Jmho.

Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The D2X will show the flaws in glass.

I have the 17-55 and its simply amazing...90% of my work now is shot with the 17-55, 70-200 combo, and I was a "prime lenses only" guy for a number of years...

Nikon Cafe is not affiliated with Nikon Corporation or any of its holdings.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.